Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 45 of 45

Thread: Exxon Mobil Settles $9 Billion New Jersey Environmental Case for $250 Million

  1. #41
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,153

    Re: Exxon Mobil Settles $9 Billion New Jersey Environmental Case for $250 Million

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    Can you cite the law that says that I'm responsible to pay for a clean up of a spill on my property that predates my purchase by 100 years?
    are you the owner of the property?
    is it environmentally contaminated, such that its contamination can affect other properties in the area?
    then you are liable for the environmental clean-up that is required under the environmental laws

    now, if you can establish that the former owner of the property knowingly withheld knowledge of the contamination at the time of the property ownership transfer, you can go to court to recover damages from that property. which damages accrued to you by virtue of the transfer of the real property into your name
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  2. #42
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,153

    Re: Exxon Mobil Settles $9 Billion New Jersey Environmental Case for $250 Million

    Quote Originally Posted by JANFU View Post
    Due diligence. Was known to be polluted. Just the way it works. Last one at the table gets the bill.
    i've had clients who backed out of otherwise lucrative real estate transactions only because they became aware that the adverse environmental condition of their property - and its need for remediation - would become exposed to the state environmental staff prior to any transfer. the prospective buyer required an environmental assessment as part of its due diligence and all such findings must be communicated to the state environmental office by the entity performing the evaluation
    the owners realized the cost of remediation would far exceed the market value of the underlying real property and refused to authorize an assessment, instead holding the property while also abandoning it until hey could find a sucker willing to acquire it without such environmental survey
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  3. #43
    Living in Gods country


    JANFU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    17,902

    Re: Exxon Mobil Settles $9 Billion New Jersey Environmental Case for $250 Million

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    Can you cite the law that says that I'm responsible to pay for a clean up of a spill on my property that predates my purchase by 100 years?
    http://media.mofo.com/files/Uploads/...nselor0108.pdf

    Innocent Purchasers May Still Be Liable Under the Spill Act - Environment - United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    Hillary is the only defense I or anyone else needs.
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Not once have I showed my dick to a woman and she thought it was creepy. In fact, in 100% of the cases, they were pretty excited about it. I don't know who you're showing your **** too.

  4. #44
    Sage
    SenorXm/Sirius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,724

    Re: Exxon Mobil Settles $9 Billion New Jersey Environmental Case for $250 Million

    If this is true this pretty much kills what little chance Christie had to be the GOP nominee. Even Republicans should be very pissed that the taxpayer got stuck with the cleanup bill because Christie stepped in to give Exxon a sweet deal. This guy suppose to be protecting the taxpayer? Yet he instead protects one of the most profitable corporations in the world.

    Even more troubling are the circumstances surrounding the decision, which recently came to light. As a judge deliberated whether to assess the $8.9 billion in damages New Jersey sought, the administration stepped in and agreed to take about $250 million and settle the case.

    Former colleagues of mine in state government, where I served as commissioner of environmental protection from 2002 to 2006, have told me that Mr. Christie’s chief counsel inserted himself into the case, elbowed aside the attorney general and career employees who had developed and prosecuted the litigation, and cut the deal favorable to Exxon.
    snip.

    One would think that Mr. Christie would have kept his immediate political staff at a distance from these negotiations.

    While he was chairman of the Republican Governors Association in 2014, the group received $500,000 from Exxon and more from company employees. While this was not Exxon’s first contribution to the group, this donation was made at a time when the New Jersey trial was pending.

    If nothing else, the optics, as they say in politics, look bad. Had the governor or his staff stayed away from the case, they would have avoided the obvious and unseemly inference that the settlement had something to do with the contribution.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/op...an-region&_r=0
    "Big or small, I don't like rabbits. They always look like they're about to say something, but they never do."
    Raj Koothrappali

  5. #45
    Sage
    SenorXm/Sirius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,724

    Re: Exxon Mobil Settles $9 Billion New Jersey Environmental Case for $250 Million

    Now we know the real reason for the quick settlement. Shameful! Just a short term fix to make the NJ budget look better for a year. More slight of hand by Christie at the expense of the tax payer.

    Historically, under state law, money received from environmental settlements has to be used on environmental efforts. But last year the Christie administration snuck some language into the state budget that effectively overrode this. For this fiscal year — and potentially this fiscal year only — the first $50 million of any environmental settlement will go toward environmental programs; anything above that can be diverted to plug holes in the state’s general fund.

    This meant there was great pressure for the state to settle the case now for whatever it could get, rather than wait — possibly for years — for the much larger amount likely to have been awarded by the judge.
    "Big or small, I don't like rabbits. They always look like they're about to say something, but they never do."
    Raj Koothrappali

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •